arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 24 Nov 2014
|
|
- Buddy Cooper
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Improved determination of heavy quarkonium magnetic dipole transitions in pnrqcd Antonio Pineda (1) and J. Segovia (2) (1) Grup de Física Teòrica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 24 Nov 2014 E Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain and (2) Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA (Dated: November 26, 2014) Abstract We compute the magnetic dipole transitions between low-lying heavy quarkonium states in a modelindependent way. We use the weak-coupling version of the effective field theory named potential NRQCD with the static potential exactly incorporated in the leading order Hamiltonian. The precision we reach is kγ/m 3 2 O(α 2 s,v 2 ) and kγ/m 3 2 O(v 4 ) for theallowed and forbiddentransitions respectively, where k γ is the photon energy. We also resum the large logarithms associated with the heavy quark mass scale. The specific transitions considered in this paper are the following: Υ(1S) η b (1S)γ, J/ψ(1S) η c (1S)γ, h b (1P) χ b0,1 (1P)γ, χ b2 (1P) h b (1P)γ, Υ(2S) η b (2S)γ, Υ(2S) η b (1S)γ and η b (2S) Υ(1S)γ. The effect of the new power counting is found to be large and the exact treatment of the soft logarithms of the static potential makes the factorization scale dependencemuch smaller. Theconvergence for the b b ground state is quite good, and also quite reasonable for the c c ground state and the b b 1P state. For all of them we give solid predictions. For the 2S decays the situation is less conclusive, yet our results are perfectly consistent with existing data, as the previous disagreement with experiment for the Υ(2S) η b (1S)γ decay fades away. We also compute some expectation values like the electromagnetic radius, r 2, or p 2. We find r 2 to be nicely convergent in all cases, whereas the convergence of p 2 is typically worse. PACS numbers: t,12.39.Hg,13.20.Gd,12.38.Cy 1
2 I. INTRODUCTION Heavy quarkonium has always been thought to be the hydrogen atom of QCD. The reason is that the heavy quarks in the bound state move at nonrelativistic velocities: v 1. This allows testing the dynamics associated with the gluonic and light-quark degrees of freedom in a kinematic regime otherwise unreachable with only light degrees of freedom. Effective field theories (EFT s) directly derived from QCD, like NRQCD [1] or pnrqcd [2] (for some reviews see Refs. [3, 4]) disentangle the dynamics of the heavy quarks from the dynamics of the light degrees of freedom efficiently and in a model-independent way. They profit from the fact that the dynamics of the bound state system is characterized by, at least, three widely separated scales: hard (the mass m of the heavy quarks), soft (the relative momentum p mv m of the heavy-quark antiquark pair in the center-of-mass frame), and ultrasoft (the typical kinetic energy E mv 2 of the heavy quark in the bound state system). In this paper we use pnrqcd. This EFT takes full advantage of the hierarchy of scales that appear in the system, m mv mv 2, (1) and makes a systematic and natural connection between quantum field theory and the Schrödinger equation. Schematically the EFT takes the form ) (i 0 p2 m V(0) s (r) φ( r) = 0 + corrections to the potential pnrqcd + interactions with other low-energy degrees of freedom where V (0) s (r) is the static potential and φ( r) is the Q- Q wave function. The specific construction details of pnrqcd are slightly different depending on the relative size between the soft and the Λ QCD scale. Two main situations are distinguished, namely, the weak-coupling [2, 5] (mv Λ QCD ) and the strong-coupling [6] (mv Λ QCD ) versions of pnrqcd. One major difference between them is that in the former the potential can be computed in perturbation theory unlike in the latter. It is obvious that the weak-coupling version of pnrqcd is amenable for a theoretically much cleaner analysis. The functional dependence on the parameters of QCD (α s and the 2
3 heavy quark masses) is fully under control and directly derived from QCD. The observables can be computed in well-defined expansion schemes with increasing accuracy, and nonperturbative effects are e 1/αs, exponentially suppressed compared with the expansion in powers of α s. Therefore, observables that could be computed with the weak-coupling version of pnrqcd are of the greatest interest. They may produce stringent tests of QCD in the weak-coupling regime (but yet with an all-order resummation of powers of α s included) and, precision permitting, are ideal places in which to accurately determine some of the parameters of QCD. Nowadays there seems to be a growing consensus that the weak-coupling regime works properly for t- t production near threshold, the bottomonium ground state mass, and bottomonium sum rules. To reach this conclusion, it is crucial to properly incorporate renormalon effects, which leads to convergent series, and the resummation of large logarithms, which significantly diminish the factorization scale dependence of the observable. Nevertheless, even in those cases, the situation is not optimal. For some observables, even if getting a convergent expansion, the corrections are large, or in the case of the bottomonium ground state hyperfine splitting a two-sigma level tension between experiment (see Ref. [7]) and theory [8, 9] exists. In order to improve the convergence properties of the theory, the perturbative expansion in pnrqcd was rearranged in Ref. [10]. In this new expansion scheme the static potential was exactly included in the leading order (LO) Hamiltonian. The motivation behind this reorganization of the perturbative series is the observation [11] that, when comparing the static potential with lattice perturbation theory, one finds a nicely convergent sequence to the lattice data (at short distances). Yet, for low orders, the agreement is not good and the incorporation of corrections is compulsory to get a good agreement. This effect can be particularly important in observables that are more sensitive to the shape of the potential, and it naturally leads us to consider a double expansion in powers of v and α s (m), where v has to do with the expectation value of the kinetic energy (or the static potential) in this new expansion scheme. In Ref. [10] this new expansion scheme was applied to the computation of the heavy quarkonium inclusive electromagnetic decay ratios. An improvement of the convergence of the sequence for the top and bottom cases was observed. It was particularly remarkable that the exact incorporation of the static potential allowed one to obtain agreement between 3
4 theory and experiment for the case of the charmonium ground state. This leads to the second motivation of the present study: the possible applicability of the weak-coupling version of pnrqcd to the charmonium (ground state) and the n = 2 excitation of the bottomonium. For those states the situation is more uncertain. Whereas Refs. [12 14] claimed that it is not possible to describe the bottomonium higher excitations in perturbation theory, an opposite stand is taken in Refs. [9, 15 17]. We hope that we may shed some light on this issue as well. The above discussion basically refers to the determination of the heavy quarkonium mass and inclusive electromagnetic decay widths. Obviously there are more observables that can be considered. Some of those are the radiative transitions: H(n) H(n )γ, where n, n stand for the principal quantum numbers of the heavy quarkonium. In Ref. [18] the allowed (n = n ) and hindered (n n ) magnetic dipole (M1) transitions between low-lying heavy quarkonium states were studied with pnrqcd in the strict weak-coupling limit. The authors of that work also performed a detailed comparison of the EFT and potential model (see Refs. [19, 20] for some reviews) results. The specific transitions considered in that paper were the following: J/ψ(1S) η c (1S)γ, Υ(1S) η b (1S)γ, Υ(2S) η b (2S)γ, Υ(2S) η b (1S)γ, η b (2S) Υ(1S)γ, h b (1P) χ b0,1 (1P)γ and χ b2 (1P) h b (1P)γ. Large errors were assigned to the pure ground state observables, especially for charmonium, whereas disagreement with experimental bounds (at that time) was found for the hindered transition Υ(2S) η b (1S)γ. In this paper we apply the new expansion scheme to those observables. The precisions we reach are kγ/m 3 2 O(αs,v 2 2 ) and kγ/m 3 2 O(v 4 ) for the allowed and forbidden transitions respectively, where k γ is the photon energy. Large hard logarithms (associated with the heavy quark mass) have also been resummed when they appear. The effect of the new power counting is found to be large and the exact treatment of the soft logarithms of the static potential makes the factorization scale dependence much smaller. The convergence for the b b ground state is quite good. This allows us to give a solid prediction for the Υ(1S) η b (1S)γ transition with small errors. The convergence is also quite reasonable for the c c ground state and the b b 1P state. For all of them we give solid predictions. For the J/ψ(1S) η c (1S)γ transition our central value is significantly different from the one obtained in Ref. [18], though perfectly compatible within errors. For the 2S decays the situation is less conclusive. Whereas for the Υ(2S) η b (2S)γ decay we 4
5 do not find convergence, previous disagreement with experiment for the hindered transition Υ(2S) η b (1S)γ fades away with the new expansion scheme. The above observables depend on the expectation values of some quantum mechanical operators, like p 2 or r 2 (the electromagnetic radius). Studying them in an isolated way is interesting on its own. First, they provide us with a very nice check of the renormalon dominance picture. According to this picture the determination of the heavy quarkonium mass using the static potential (in the on-shell scheme) should yield a bad convergent series, as is actually observed. The reason for this bad behavior is the existence of an r-independent constant that contributes to the potential and deteriorates the convergence of the perturbative series. If this is so, a check of this picture would be the computation of observables that are not affected by adding a constant to the potential. For those good convergence is expected. This is actually the case of p 2 or r 2. We nicely see in Sec. III that this picture is confirmed. We find the electromagnetic radius (somewhat surprisingly) to be nicely convergent in all cases. This allows us to talk of the typical (electromagnetic) radius of the bound state in those cases. The kinetic energy is also (though typically less than the radius) convergent except for the 2S state. Then, we can also define a typical velocity v p 2 /m 2 for those states. This paper is distributed as follows. In Sec. II we discuss the theoretical background of the computation and display the formulas we use for the decays. In Sec. III we analyze p 2 and r 2, and discuss renormalon dominance. In Sec. IV we compute the radiative transitions. Finally, in Sec. V we summarize our main results and give our conclusions. II. THEORETICAL SETUP Forthepurposes ofthis paperwecanskip most detailsofpnrqcd.wewill onlyneed the singlet static potential V (0) s (r) V(r) and the spin-dependent potential V (2) S 2,s (r) V S 2(r)1. The static potential will be treated exactly by including it in the leading-order Hamiltonian H (0) 2 2m r +V(r), and H (0) φ nl ( r) = E nl φ nl ( r), (2) 1 For simplicity, we omit the index s for singlet and the upper indices (0) and (2) throughout the paper. 5
6 where m r = m 1 m 2 /(m 1 + m 2 ) (in this paper m 1 = m 2 = m). The static potential will be approximated by a polynomial of order N + 1 in powers of α s (C f = (N 2 c 1)/(2N c), C A = N c ) V (N) (r) = C f α s (ν) r { 1+ N ( ) n αs (ν) a n (ν;r)}. (3) 4π In principle, we would like to take N as large as possible (though we also want to explore the dependence on N). In practice, we take the static potential, at most, up to N=3, i.e., up to O(αs 4 ) including also the leading ultrasoft corrections. This is the order to which the coefficients a n are completely known: a 1 (ν;r) = a 1 +2β 0 ln(νe γ E r), a 2 (ν;r) = a 2 + π2 3 β 2 0 +(4a 1β 0 +2β 1 ) ln(νe γ E r) +4β 2 0 ln2 (νe γ E r), a 3 (ν;r) = a 3 +a 1 β0 2 π2 + 5π2 6 β 0β 1 +16ζ 3 β0 3 + (2π 2 β 30 +6a 2β 0 +4a 1 β 1 +2β ) C 3A π2 ln(νe γ E r) ) + (12a 1 β β 0 β 1 ln 2 (νe γ E r) +8β0 3 ln 3 (νe γ E r) n=1 + δa us 3 (ν,ν us). (4) The O(α s ) term was computed in Ref. [21], the O(α 2 s) in Ref. [22], the O(α 3 s) logarithmic term in Refs. [23, 24], the light-flavor finite piece in Ref. [25], and the pure gluonic finite piece in Refs. [26, 27]. For the ultrasoft corrections to the static potential we take δa us 3 (ν,ν us) = 16 ( νus ) 3 C3 A π2 ln. (5) ν We will not use the renormalization group improved ultrasoft expression in this paper[28 32], as its numerical impact is small compared with other sources of error. We will always work with three light (massless) quarks. For the case of the bottomonium ground state we also incorporate the leading effect due to the charm mass: ( ) δv [2] (r) = 4 α s (3) (ν) α s (3) (ν) ( x2 1 dx 1+ 1 ) e 2mcrx, (6) 3 r 3π x 2 2x 2 1 which can be easily read from the analogous QED computation (see, for instance, Ref. [33]). Itseffect will bequite tiny. Therefore, wehave onlyincorporatedeq. (6) inour final (N = 3) evaluations and have not considered any other subdominant effects in the charm mass. 6
7 The spin-dependent potential will be treated as a perturbation. It will contribute to the hindered M1 transitions. Nowadays, it is known with next-to-leading-log (NLL) accuracy [34]. Nevertheless, for consistency with our accuracy, we will use its LL expression where [35] (see also [36] for the derivation in vnrqcd) V S 2( r) = 4 3 πc fd (2) S 2,s (ν)δ(3) ( r) (7) D (2) S 2,s (ν) = α s(ν)c 2 F (ν) 3 2πC f (d sv (ν)+c f d vv (ν)) (8) depends on the NRQCD Wilson coefficients. With LL accuracy they read c F (ν) = z C A, d sv (ν) = d sv (m), (9) where d vv (ν) = d vv (m)+ C A β 0 2C A πα s (m)(z β 0 2C A 1), [ ] 1 αs β (ν) 0 1 z = 1 α s (m) ( d sv (m) = C f C f C ) A πα s (m), d vv (m) = 2 ( C f C A 2 ) πα s (m). 2π α s(ν)ln( ν m ), (10) The theoretical study of the M1 transitions in the strict weak-coupling limit of pnrqcd has been carried out in detail in Ref. [18]. A particular relevant result was that nonperturbative effects, associated with the mixing with the octet field, were subleading and beyond present precision. We can use their results in our power counting scheme with minor modifications (note that the dependence on the ultrasoft scale only enters marginally through the static potential). The expressions we use for the decays are the following (see Fig. 1 for the 7
8 γ (k γ, k) H P H = (M H, 0) P H = ( k 2 γ +M 2 H, k) H FIG. 1: Kinematics of the radiative transition H H γ in the rest frame of the initial-state quarkonium H. kinematics) 2 Γ(n 3 S 1 n 1 S 0 γ) = 4 3 αe2 Q Γ(n 3 S 1 n 1 S 0 γ) n n = 4 3 αe2 Q Γ(n 1 S 0 n 3 S 1 γ) n n = 4αe 2 Q kγ 3 m 2 kγ 3 m 2 kγ 3 m 2 [ (1+κ) [ k2 γ Γ(n 3 P J n 1 P 1 γ) = 3Γ(n1 P 1 n 3 P J γ) 2J +1 where in Eq. (14) d 0 = 1, d 1 = 2, d 2 = 8/5, ] p 2 n0, (11) m 2 ] 2,(12) n 0 p 2 n0 m 2 0 r 2 24 n n0 5 6 [ k2 γ 0 r 2 24 n n0 5 n 0 p 2 n0 6 m 2 = 4 3 αe2 Q kγ 3 m V S2( r) n n0 m 2 E n0 E n 0 2 ] 2 0 V S2( r) n n0, (13) m 2 E n0 E n 0 ], (14) [ (1+κ) 2 d J p 2 n1 m 2 k γ = k = M2 H M2 H 2M H, (15) and the anomalous magnetic moment of the heavy quark, which is renormalization group invariant, reads κ = κ (1) α s (m)+κ (2) α 2 s(m)+ (16) 2 In the following we use the notation ns p 2 ns = p 2 n0, np p 2 np = p 2 n1, n S p 2 ns = n 0 p 2 n0 and so on. 8
9 ( Cf ) κ (1) = (17) 2π κ (2) = C [( f 31 π π2 12 π2 ln2 + 3ζ ) 3 C f (18) 2 4 ( π2 8 + π2 ln2 3ζ ) ( 3 C A + 25n f ] )T 36 π2 F. 3 We take κ from Ref. [37] (it was originally computed in Refs. [38, 39], though the first reference suffered from a factor 4 misprint). Equations (11,12,13,14) follow from the expressions obtained in Ref. [18], except for the following changes: (i) The matrix elements of r 2, p 2 and V S 2 are computed using the exact solution of Eq. (2) with the static potential approximated to the power N instead of using the Coulomb potential; (ii) we use the heavy quark anomalous dimension κ to O(αs 2 ); (iii) our expression for V S 2, Eq. (7), incorporates the LL resummation of logarithms (this will actually be important for the 2S 1S decays). Overall, our expressions are accurate with k 3 γ /m2 O(v 2,α 2 s ) and k3 γ /m2 O(v 4 ) precision for the allowed and hindered transitions, respectively, and also include the resummation of large (hard) logarithms. Equations (11,12,13,14) have been obtained in the on-shell scheme. Therefore, they depend on the pole mass m and the static potential V, both of which suffer from severe renormalon ambiguities. On the other hand, the decays themselves are renormalon-free, as they are observables. Therefore, it is convenient to make the renormalon cancellation explicit. One first makes the substitution 3 (m,v(r)) = (m X +δm X,V X (r) 2δm X ), (19) where δm (N) X (ν f) = ν f N n=0 δm (n) X (ν f ν )αn+1 s (ν) (20) represents a residual mass that encodes the pole mass renormalon contribution and X stands for the specific renormalon subtraction scheme. Matrix elements are renormalon-free but not the heavy quark mass. Its renormalon ambiguity cancels with the one coming from the anomalous magnetic moment of the heavy quark. The renormalon structure of the chromomagnetic moment of the heavy quark has been studied in detail in Ref. [40]. If one 3 Note that δm X and m (or V) have to be expanded to the same power in α s and at the same scale. 9
10 does the Abelian-like limit, one can get the renormalon structure of the anomalous magnetic moment of the heavy quark. One sees that it suffers from the very same renormalon as the heavy quark mass. Therefore, the quantity (1 + κ)/m is free of the renormalon ambiguity (or at least of the leading one). When rewriting the decay expressions from the on-shell scheme to the X scheme, the change is absorbed in κ so κ κ X where with κ X = κ (1) X α s(m)+κ (2) X α2 s (m)+ (21) κ (1) X = κ(1) ν f m δm(0) X (ν f m ) (22) κ (2) X = κ(2) ν ( f m δm(1) X (ν f m ) κ(0)ν f m δm(0) X (ν f m )+ νf ) 2 m δm(0) X (ν f m ). (23) Overall in Eqs. (11,12,13,14) we have to make the replacement (m,v,κ) (m X,V X,κ X ) throughout. Note that, once written in terms of renormalon-free quantities, one may consider different N, N for V (N) X, ) m(n X,..., and the observable would still be renormalon-free. III. APPLICABILITY OF WEAK COUPLING TO HEAVY QUARKONIUM The allowed M1 radiative transitions depend on p 2 nl and, at higher orders, on other expectation values such as r 2 nl. Studying them gives us a hint of the applicability of the weak-coupling version of pnrqcd to those states, and a very nice check of the renormalon dominancepicture. Inthissectionwecomputetheboundstateenergy(E nl ), p 2 nl and r 2 nl for the charmonium ground state and for n = 1,2 bottomonium states. In the cases where we have goodconvergence, we will be ableto obtain well-defined values forv nl p 2 nl /m 2 and r 2 nl. Our reference values for the charm and bottom masses are m b (m b ) = 4.19 [41] and m c (m c ) = 1.25 [42], which we then transform to renormalon subtracted schemes like the RS, RS [43] or PS [44]. We will mainly use the RS scheme and leave the RS and PS schemes for partial checking (in particular that the dependence on the renormalon subtraction scheme 10
11 is small). Therefore, we use (δm (0) RS = 0 and d n (ν,ν f ) = β n /2 1+2n ln β 0 δm (1) RS ( ν f ν ) = N m 2π S(1,b), δm (2) RS ( ν ( )[ f β0 ν ) = N m δm (3) RS ( ν f ν ) =N m [ where 2π ( β0 2π ) S(1,b) 2d 0(ν,ν f ) π + S(1,b) 3d2 0 (ν,ν f)+2d 1 (ν,ν f ) π 2 + S(n,b) = 2 k=0 ( ) ] β0 S(2, b), 2π ( ν ν f )) ( ) β0 S(2,b) 3d 0(ν,ν f ) + 2π π c k Γ(n+1+b k) Γ(1+b k) ( ) 2 β0 S(3,b)]. 2π with c 0 = 1 and b = β 1, c 2β0 2 1 = 1 ( ) β 2 1 β 4bβ0 3 2 (26) β 0 and 1 β1 4 +4β c 2 = 0β 3 1 β 2 2β 0 β1β 2 2 +β0( 2β β2) 2β 2 0β 4 3. (27) b(b 1) 32β0 8 For easy of reference, we give some typical values that we will use in this paper: m b,rs (0.7GeV) = 4902 MeV, m b,rs (1GeV) = 4859 MeV, m c,rs (0.7GeV) = 1648 MeV, m c,rs (1GeV) = 1536 MeV. Our reference value for N m will be N m = (for three light flavors) from Ref. [43]. To this number we will typically assign a 10% uncertainty. Our reference value for α s will be α (n f=3) s (1 GeV) = , which we obtain running down α (n f=5) s (M Z ) = We then run with four loop accuracy for the typical scales of the bound state system. Unless stated otherwise, throughout the paper we will set ν us = ν f. The static potential we will consider in the following will be (in the RS scheme) N (V (N) +2δm (N) RS ) ν=ν V RS,nαs n+1 (ν) if r > νr 1 V (N) n=0 RS (r) = N (V (N) +2δm (N) RS ) ν=1/r V RS,nαs n+1 (1/r) if r < νr 1. This expression encodes all the possible limits: n=0 (a). The case ν r =, ν f = 0 is nothing but the on-shell static potential at fixed order, i.e. Eq. (3). Note that the N = 0 case reduces to a standard computation with a Coulomb 11 (24) (25) (28)
12 potential, for which we can compare with analytic results for the matrix elements. We will use this fact to check our numerical solutions of the Schroedinger equation. If we also switch off the hard logs and the O(α 2 s) correction to the anomalous magnetic moment, our computation would be equal to the one performed in Ref. [18]. We will use this fact to compare with their results throughout the paper. (b). The case ν r = (with finite non-zero ν f ) is nothing but adding an r-independent constant to the static potential (see the discussion in Ref. [11]). Therefore, the results for p 2 nl and r 2 nl do not depend on the specific value of ν f (for a fixed heavy quark mass). In particular, the value ν f = 0 can be taken, which is equivalent to not considering any renormalonsubtractionatall. Ontheotherhand,thebindingenergyE nl isrenormalondependent. This effect can be seen in full glory in Fig. 2, where we plot M 10 = 2m b,rs (0.7GeV)+E 10 and r 2 10 for the case of the bottomonium using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3. We clearly observe how, for the ν r =, ν f = 0 case, the bound state energy is not convergent (see dashed lines), whereas r 2 10 is (see solid lines). On the other hand, for the ν r =, ν f = 0.7 GeV case, both the bound state energy and r 2 10 show a nice convergent pattern as we increase N (see solid lines). Note that r 2 10 is exactly the same in both cases: ν f = 0 or ν f = 0.7 (this is the reason only solid lines show up in Fig. 2.b). The same analysis can be done for p 2 10, as one can see in Fig. 3 for the dashed lines (note, though, that p 2 10 is less convergent than r 2 10 ). A rather similar picture is observed for the charmonium ground state, though the sequences, as expected, are less convergent. Again, it is compulsory to incorporate the renormalon cancellation (finite ν f ) to transform the bound state energy in a convergent sequence in N, whereas r 2 and p 2 are always convergent (see the dashed lines of Fig. 4); everything in full accordance with the renormalon dominance picture. For the n = 2 bottomonium states the situation is less conclusive. For both the P- and S-wave r 2 is convergent, see the dashed lines of Figs. 5.a and 6.a, respectively. On the other hand, p 2 is only marginally convergent for P-wave (see the dashed lines of Fig. 5.b), or even not convergent for the S-wave (see the dashed lines of Fig. 6.b), as each order is typically of the same size. (c). We now take ν r = finite (and, for consistency, ν r ν f ). We expect this case to improve over the previous results, as it incorporates the correct (logarithmically modulated) 12
13 (a) M(ϒ(1S)) (GeV) (b) r 2 (ϒ(1S)) (GeV -1 ) FIG. 2: Plot of M 10 = 2m b,rs (0.7GeV)+E 10 and r 2 10 of the bottomonium ground state using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3. The dashed lines have been computed with ν f = 0. The continuous lines have been computed with ν f = 0.7 GeV. In both cases ν r = GeV. 13
14 2 1.8 (a) r 2 (ϒ(1S)) (GeV -1 ) (b) v 2 (ϒ(1S)) FIG. 3: Plot of r 2 10 and v 2 10 for the case of the bottomonium ground state using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3. The dashed lines have been computed with ν r =. The continuous lines have been computed with ν r = 0.7 GeV. In both cases ν f = 0.7 GeV. 14
15 short distance behavior of the potential. Yet, this has to be done with care in order not to spoil the renormalon cancellation. For this it is compulsory from now on to keep a finite, nonvanishing, ν f ; otherwise, the renormalon cancellation is not achieved order by order in N, as was discussed in detail in Ref. [11]. We have explored the effect of different values of ν f in our analysis. Large values of ν f imply a large infrared cutoff. This makes our scheme to become closer to a MS-like scheme. Such schemes still achieve renormalon cancellation, yet they jeopardize the power counting, as the residual mass does not count as mv 2. This comes at the cost of making the consecutive terms of the perturbative series bigger. Therefore, we prefer values of ν f as low as possible, with the constraint that one should still obtain the renormalon cancellation, and that it is still possible to perform the expansion in powers of α s. In our analysis we observe that we can use a rather low value of ν f and yet obtain the renormalon cancellation. By also taking a low value of ν r we find that the convergence is accelerated and the scale dependence is significantly reduced. We illustrate this behavior in Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6, where we can compare the case with ν r = finite (continuous lines) and ν r = (dashed lines). This improvement is observed in all cases except for the 2S bottomonium p Especially relevant for us is that it accelerates the convergence of p 2 10 for charmonium, and transforms p 2 21 into a convergent series. Leavingasidethe2S bottomoniumstate, itisparticularlyappealingtocomparethen = 0 case forν r = finite andν r =. The latter corresponds to thecoulomb approximation, and it is the one used in the strict weak-coupling analysis performed for the radiative transitions in Ref. [18]. One can see a very strong scale dependence, almost a vertical line compared with the ν r = 0.7 GeV case (see, for instance, Fig. 3). Therefore, small variations of the scale produce very large changes in the theoretical prediction. This makes it difficult to assign central values (and errors). This is not the case after resumming the soft logarithms by setting ν r 0. This produces flatter plots. Notealso that, typically, there is a scale where ν r = and ν r = 0.7 lines cross. One can then take this scale as a way to fix the scale ν of the computation with ν r = (which corresponds to the strict weak-coupling expansion). Overall, we find the electromagnetic radius (somewhat surprisingly) to be nicely convergent in all cases. This allows us to talk of the typical (electromagnetic) radius of these bound states. The kinetic energy is also (though typically less than the radius) convergent, except for the 2S state. Then, we can also define a vnl 2 p2 nl /m 2 for those states. We show these 15
16 5 4.5 (a) r 2 (ψ(1s)) (GeV -1 ) (b) v 2 (ψ(1s)) FIG. 4: Plot of r 2 10 and v 2 10 for the case of the charmonium using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3. The dashed lines have been computed with ν r =. The continuous lines have been computed with ν r = 0.7 GeV. In both cases ν f = 0.7 GeV. 16
17 (a) r 2 (χ b (1P)) (GeV -1 ) (b) v 2 (χ b (1P)) FIG. 5: Plot of r 2 21 and v 2 21 for the case of the n = 2 P-wave bottomonium using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3. The dashed lines have been computed with ν r =. The continuous lines have been computed with ν r = 0.7 GeV. In both cases ν f = 0.7 GeV. 17
18 (a) r 2 (ϒ(2S)) (GeV -1 ) (b) 0.06 v 2 (ϒ(2S)) FIG. 6: Plot of r 2 20 and v 2 20 for the case of the n = 2 S-wave bottomonium using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3. The dashed lines have been computed with ν r =. The continuous lines have been computed with ν r = 0.7 GeV. In both cases ν f = 0.7 GeV. 18
19 numbers in Table I. These numbers can be taken as estimates of the typical radius of the bound state system and of the typical velocity of the heavy quarks inside the bound state. It is comforting that the numbers we obtain for v 2 are similar to those usually assigned either by potential models or by NRQCD (see, for instance, [45, 46]). The specific values in the table have been taken from the N = 3 case at ν = 1.5 GeV (and ν f = ν r = 0.7 GeV). For the b b ground state the result is very stable under scale variations; for the charm ground state and for the bottomonium P-wave the scale dependence is bigger. We stress that the numbers in the table should be taken as estimates. We do not attempt here to perform a specific error analysis of those numbers, as it is not needed for the decays. Let us just mention that one source of the error would come from the 1/m subleading potentials. In principle, these effects would produce O(v 2 ) corrections. For bottomonium and charmonium this would typically mean 7% and 20% variations of the central values, respectively. Especially for bottomonium, such uncertainties would compite with the difference between different N evaluations or, in some cases, with the scale variation. Finally, we remark that for the 2S bottomonium state the numbers in the table should be taken with more caution, as there is no convergence in the sequence in N. One might actually be surprised by the fact that the (n,l) = (2,1) and the (n,l) = (2,0) states show this different behavior, as far as convergence is concerned, since the typical transfer momentum is the same. One should note, though, that the (n,l) = (2,0) squared wave function has two maxima, and the most important one is a very low momentum. On the other hand, this problem only appears for p 2 and not for r 2, so we find the situation inconclusive. b b(1s) c c(1s) b b(1p) b b(2s) v r 2 (GeV 1 ) TABLE I: Estimates for v p 2 /m 2 and r 2 for the heavy quarkonium states. For the b b(2s) state the number we give for v is quite uncertain. The results of this and the following section have been obtained by solving the Schroedinger equation numerically. We have performed a series of tests of the numerical 19
20 solutions. As we have already mentioned, the case N = 0 with ν r = corresponds to the Coulomb case. We have checked the numerical solution against the known analytical result in this case. For a general N and ν r we have also computed p 2 either directly (in momentum space) or through the equality (E V(r)) = p 2 /m. Finally, we have also checked the wave function at the origin, either by direct computation (taking the smallest point at which the wave function has been computed and checking for stability) or through the equality φ nl (0) 2 = m/(4π) V (r) nl (see Ref. [45]). IV. M1 TRANSITIONS In this section we compute the M1 radiative transitions for the low lying bottomonium and charmonium states. A. Υ(1S) η b (1S)γ Our central value for Γ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ is obtained using Eq. (11) with N = 3, ν = 1.5 GeV, and ν f = ν r = 0.7 GeV. For k γ we take the values of the Υ(1S) and η b (1S) masses from the PDG [7] 4. In table II we show the size of the different contributions to Γ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ. The O(α s ) and O(αs 2) corrections are evaluated at the mass scale. The O(α s(m)) corrections in the RS and on-shell scheme are equal. Renormalon effects first appear at O(αs(m)) 2 and make this expansion more convergent. Yet, as we have taken a small value of ν f, the O(αs 2(m)) term is still large. There are no O(v) corrections. The O(v2 ) correction can be evaluated at different orders in N, and for different values of the factorization scale. One can easily deduce its size by multiplying Fig. 3.b by -5/3 times the LO result. The value quoted in Table II for the O(v 2 ) correction has been obtained for N = 3 and ν = 1.5 GeV. An almost identical value is obtained if one takes ν to be the scale of minimal sensitivity. Actually, one also obtains a quite similar value if one takes the scale of minimal sensitivity of the N = 3, ν r = computation. The great advantage of using ν r = 0.7 GeV versus ν r = 4 We note, though, that thereis arecentdeterminationofthe η b (1S) masswhichisaround10mevlower[47] thanthe PDGvalue. Ifsuchavalueisconfirmedk γ shouldbechangedaccordingly(asγ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ k 3 γ the effect is important), which can be trivially done. 20
21 is that the ν dependence becomes very mild; thus, it is not a source of uncertainty, and one can give sensible predictions for the central values. We note that, depending on the order N, minimal sensitivity scales may not show up, as we can see in Fig. 3 for other values of N and/or ν r. Therefore, in some cases such a prescription may not give a meaningful result and the series still be convergent. LO O(α s ) O(α 2 s) O(v 2 ) α s O(α 2 s) v O(v 2 ) δγ (ev) TABLE II: The leading and subleading contributions to Γ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ. The last two numbers are error estimates obtained by multiplying the subleading O(α 2 s) contribution by α s and the subleading O(v 2 ) contribution by v. If we sum all the contributions of Table II we obtain ev, which is quite close to the LO ev value. This is due to the strong cancellation between the α s and v corrections. The main source of uncertainty comes from higher order terms. Because of the strong cancellation between the α s and v terms, we feel that adding a power of v to the overall correction would underestimate the error. Instead, we take the v O(v 2 ) contribution in Table II as our estimate of the subleading correction, as it is the biggest possible contribution. Such term alone produces an error of order 3%. This error is much bigger than the error one would obtain only considering scale variations (see Fig. 7), or if we do the evaluation with N = 2 instead of N = 3 (see, again, Fig. 7), or than the error associated with variations of ν f. All these errorsareassociatedwithhigher order effects. Wedonotinclude those, inorder to avoid double counting. The only other source of theoretical error that we include is the one due to N m (for the evaluation of this error we also take into account the correlation with the bottom mass value). Besides the theoretical error, we also include the error associated with the QCD parameters, even though its size is typically smaller than the theoretical error. For α s we take the variation α s (M z ) = 0.118±0.001 [7]. For the variation of the MS bottom mass we take m b (m b ) = 4.19±0.03 GeV. In summary, we obtain the following result for the different error contributions: Γ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ = 15.18±0.45(O(v 3 )) (N m) (α s) (m MS ) ev, (29) 21
22 Γ(ϒ(1S) η b (1S)γ) (ev) FIG. 7: Plot of Γ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ for the case of the bottomonium ground state using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3 with ν r = ν f = 0.7 GeV. The horizontal line is our central value and the yellow band our final error estimate. which after combining the errors in quadrature reads Γ Υ(1S) ηb (1S)γ = 15.18(51) ev. (30) This corresponds to a branching fraction of Equation (30) is bigger than the result obtained in Ref. [18] ( (k γ /39) kev, see Ref. [48]) but compatible within errors. B. J/ψ(1S) η c (1S)γ Our central value for Γ J/ψ(1S) ηc(1s)γ is obtained using Eq. (11) with N = 3, ν = 1.5 GeV, and ν f = ν r = 0.7 GeV. For k γ we take the values of the J/ψ(1S) and η c (1S) masses from the PDG [7]. In table III, we show the size of the different contributions to Γ J/ψ(1S) ηc(1s)γ. The O(α s ) and O(αs 2) corrections are evaluated at the mass scale. The O(α s(m)) corrections in the RS and on-shell scheme are equal. Renormalon effects first appear at O(αs(m)) 2 22
23 and make this expansion more convergent. Yet, as we have taken a small value of ν f, the O(αs 2(m)) term is still large. There are no O(v) corrections. The O(v2 ) correction can be evaluated at different orders in N, and for different values of the factorization scale. One can easily deduce its size by multiplying Fig. 4.b by -5/3 times the LO result. The value quoted in Table III for the O(v 2 ) correction has been obtained for N = 3 and ν = 1.5 GeV. Unlike in Sec. IVA, in this case there are no scales of minimal sensitivity. The use of a finite ν r significantly diminishes the factorization scale dependence of the result. Yet, we also observe that a large scale dependence remains for small scales. Therefore, the value we take and quoted in Table III for the O(v 2 ) correction corresponds to N = 3 and ν = 1.5 GeV, as we feel that smaller values of ν may yield unrealistic results. LO O(α s ) O(α 2 s) O(v 2 ) α s O(α 2 s) v O(v 2 ) δγ (kev) TABLE III: The leading and subleading contributions to Γ J/ψ(1S) ηc(1s)γ. The last two numbers are error estimates obtained by multiplying the subleading O(α 2 s) contribution by α s and the subleading O(v 2 ) contribution by v. If we sum all the contributions of Table III we obtain 2.12 kev, which is quite close to the LO 2.34 kev value. This is due to the strong cancellation between the α s and v corrections. The main source of uncertainty comes from higher order terms. Because of the strongcancellationbetween theα s andv terms, wefeelthataddingapower ofv totheoverall correction would underestimate the error. Instead, we take the v O(v 2 ) contribution in Table III as our estimate of the subleading correction, as it is the biggest possible individual term. This term alone produces an error of order 15%. This error is much bigger than the error one would obtain only considering scale variations (see Fig. 8), or if we do the evaluation with N = 2 instead of N = 3 (see, again, Fig. 8). It is also bigger than the error associated with variations of ν f. All these errors are associated with higher order effects. We do not include those, in order to avoid double counting. The only other source of theoretical error that we include is the one due to N m (for the evaluation of this error we also take into account the correlation with the charm mass value). Besides the theoretical error, we also include the error associated with the QCD parameters, even though its size is typically 23
24 Γ(J/ψ η c (1S)γ) (kev) FIG. 8: Plot of Γ J/ψ(1S) ηc(1s)γ using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3 with ν r = ν f = 0.7 GeV. The horizontal line is our central value and the yellow band our final error estimate. smaller than the theoretical error. For α s we take the variation α s (M z ) = 0.118±0.001 [7]. For the variationof the MS charm mass we take m c (m c ) = 1.25±0.04 GeV (see, for instance, [42]). In summary, we obtain the following result for the different error contributions: Γ J/ψ(1S) ηc(1s)γ = 2.12±0.30(O(v 3 )) (N m ) (α s ) (m MS ) kev, (31) which, after combining the errors in quadrature, reads Γ J/ψ(1S) ηc(1s)γ = 2.12(40) kev. (32) This corresponds to a branching fraction of We can now compare this with previous determinations of this decay. As in Ref. [49], we summarize the comparison in Fig. 9. Unlike in that reference, we do not include the values obtained in Refs. [19, 20] assigned to potential models. They correspond to the LO computation in our notation (see Table III). The difference with our value is (mainly) due 24
25 Γ(J/ψ η c (1S)γ) (kev) 4 2 Experiment Theoretical predictions PDG upper limit PDG lower limit Crystal Ball [50] CLEO [51] KEDR [52] Disp. relations [53] Sum Rules [54] Sum Rules [55] Latt. QCD [49] HPQCD [56] Eff. theory [18] Eff. theory, This work 0 [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [49] [56] [18] ours FIG. 9: Comparison of different theoretical and experimental predictions for Γ J/ψ ηcγ. to the different value of the charm mass. Note that in our case the charm mass is not a free parameter; rather, it is fixed by the value of the MS mass. We could still vary the RS mass by changing ν f, but this effect would be compensated by the O(α s,v) effects. We now compare with the EFT computation of Ref. [18]. It is equivalent to ours, setting N = 0, ν r =, and eliminating the O(αs) 2 corrections. When we do so, we can get agreement with their number if we, as they do, set a very low value for the factorization scale (there are minor differences coming from the values of the heavy quark masses used). We see a very strong scale dependence in this regime. In this paper we restrict ourselves to values of ν where we get stable results after the resummation of the soft logarithms. This produces much bigger numbers, which, however, get reduced by increasing N. Either way, it should be emphasized that both results are perfectly compatible within errors. We also refer to Fig. 9 for comparison with the existing experimental numbers [50 52], and other theoretical predictions using either dispersion relations/sum rules [53 55] or lattice simulations [49, 56]. Our result is basically compatible with all of them within errors. We can discriminate very low values of the decay and start to have tensions with the Crystal Ball determination. 25
26 C. P-wave decays LO O(α s ) O(α 2 s ) O(v2 ) α s O(α 2 s ) v O(v2 ) δγ hb (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ (ev) δγ hb (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ (ev 10 3 ) δγ χb2 (1P) h b (1P)γ (ev) TABLE IV: The leading and subleading contributions to Γ hb (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ, Γ hb (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ and Γ χb2 (1P) h b (1P)γ, respectively. The last two numbers are error estimates obtained by multiplying the subleading O(α 2 s) contribution by α s and the subleading O(v 2 ) contribution by v. We now compute the P-wave decays for n = 2 bottomonium (though they could end up being of academic interest because of the very small energy differences). In this case we have several decays (see Eq. (14)). The differences among them are spin factors, which weight the p 2 matrix element differently (there are also important differences for k γ depending on the decay). From the physical point of view the situation is similar to the two previous sections, as the squared wave function still has a single maximum, though more weighted at somewhat smaller scales. Our central values for the decays Γ hb (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ, Γ hb (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ, andγ χb2 (1P) h b (1P)γ areobtained using Eq. (14) withn = 3, ν = 1.5 GeV, andν f = ν r = 0.7 GeV. They are compatible with the numbers obtained in [18] if we account for the different k γ and a trivial misprint (kev ev). For k γ we take the masses of the different P-wave states from the PDG [7]. In table IV we show the size of the different contributions. The O(α s ) and O(α 2 s ) corrections are evaluated at the mass scale. The O(α s(m)) corrections are equal in thers andon-shell scheme. Renormalon effects first appear at O(αs 2 (m)) and make this expansion more convergent, yet, as we have taken a small value of ν f, the O(α 2 s(m)) term is still relatively large. There are no O(v) corrections. The O(v 2 ) correction can be evaluated at different orders in N and for different values of the factorization scale. One can easily deduce its size by multiplying Fig. 5.b by -5/3 times the LO result. Unlike in Sec. IVA, inthis case there are no scales of minimal sensitivity. The use of a finite ν r significantly diminishes the factorization scale dependence of the result. Yet, we observe that a strong scale dependence remains for small scales. Therefore, the value we quote in Table IV for the 26
27 (a) (b) Γ(h b (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ) (ev) Γ(h b (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ) (ev) (c) Γ(χ b2 (1P) h b (1P)γ) (ev) FIG. 10: Plot of Γ hb (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ, Γ hb (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ and Γ χb2 (1P) h b (1P)γ using the static potential V (N) RS at different orders in perturbation theory: N = 0,1,2,3 with ν r = ν f = 0.7 GeV. The horizontal line is our central value and the yellow band our final error estimate. O(v 2 ) correction corresponds to N = 3 and ν = 1.5 GeV, as we feel that smaller values of ν may yield unrealistic results. Note that, unlike the O(α s ) corrections, this contribution is weighted differently for each decay. Therefore, properly weighted differences of these decays may yield absolute determinations of the p 2 21 matrix element. In any case, the relative sign between the O(v 2 ) and O(α s (m)) corrections produces cancellations between these terms. The magnitude of this cancellation depends on the specific decay mode, but it is large in all cases. In order to estimate the errors we proceed analogously to the two previous sections. We take the v O(v 2 ) contribution of Table IV as our estimate of the subleading correction, as it is the biggest possible individual term. The only other source of theoretical error that we 27
28 include is the one due to N m (for the evaluation of this error we also take into account the correlation with the bottom mass value). Besides the theoretical error, we also include the error associated with the QCD parameters, even though its size is typically smaller than the theoretical error. For α s we take the variation α s (M z ) = 0.118±0.001 [7]. For the variation of the MS bottom mass we take m b (m b ) = 4.19 ± 0.03 GeV. In summary, we obtain the following result for the different error contributions for the three decays: Γ hb (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ = 0.962±0.013(O(v 3 )) (N m ) (α s ) (m MS ) ev, (33) Γ hb (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ = 8.99±0.27(O(v 3 )) (N m ) (α s ) (m MS ) 10 3 ev, (34) Γ χb2 (1P) h b (1P)γ = 0.118±0.003(O(v 3 )) (N m) (α s) (m MS ) ev, (35) which, after combining the errors in quadrature, read Γ hb (1P) χ b0 (1P)γ = 0.962(35) ev, (36) Γ hb (1P) χ b1 (1P)γ = 8.99(55) 10 3 ev, (37) Γ χb2 (1P) h b (1P)γ = 0.118(6) ev. (38) The errors are heavily dominated by theory. They are much bigger than the error one would obtain only considering scale variations (see Fig. 10), or if we do the evaluation with N = 2 instead of N = 3 (see, again, Fig. 10). They are also bigger than the error associated with variations of ν f. D. Υ(2S) η b (2S)γ WenowcomputetheΥ(2S) η b (2S)γ decay. WeuseEq. (11)withn = 2,whichdepends on p We observed in Fig. 6 that this object was not convergent in N. Therefore, the results of this section should be taken with some caution. LO O(α s ) O(α 2 s ) O(v2 ) δγ (ev) TABLE V: The leading and subleading contributions to Γ Υ(2S) ηb (2S)γ. 28
29 Our central value will be obtained by using Eq. (11) with N = 3, ν = 1.5 GeV, and ν f = ν r = 0.7 GeV. For k γ we take the value of the Υ(2S) mass from the PDG [7]. For the mass of the η b (2S) we take the recent value obtained by Belle [47] for definiteness. Nevertheless, we should remark that a different value is obtained by using CLEO data [57] (if so our numbers can be trivially rescaled accordingly). In table V we show the size of the different contributions to Γ Υ(2S) ηb (2S)γ. The O(α s ) and O(α 2 s) corrections are evaluated at the mass scale. The O(α s (m)) corrections are equal in the RS and on-shell scheme. Renormalon corrections first appear at O(αs 2 (m)) and make this expansion more convergent, yet, as we have taken a small value of ν f, the O(α 2 s(m)) term is still large. There are no O(v) corrections. The O(v 2 ) correction can be evaluated at different orders in N and for different values of the factorization scale. One can easily deduce its size by multiplying Fig. 6.b by -5/3 times the LO result. The value quoted in Table V for the O(v 2 ) correction has been obtained for N = 3 and ν = 1.5 GeV. For the 2S bottomonium state the use of a finite ν r, in particular ν r = 0.7, does not significantly improve the ν r = computation. The factorization scale dependence is still significant and the convergence bad. Therefore, conservatively we take the O(v 2 ) term as our estimate of the error associated with higher order corrections. This term alone produces an error of order 10%. For the rest of the errors we proceed as in the previous sections. Overall, we obtain Γ Υ(2S) ηb (2S)γ = 0.668±0.059(O(v 2 )) (N m) (α s) (m MS ) ev, (39) which after combining the errors in quadrature reads Γ Υ(2S) ηb (2S)γ = 0.668(60) ev. (40) In Fig. 11 we compare this result with the scale variation of the evaluation of the decay for different values of N. Note that our error is much bigger than the one from the factorization scale dependence, or from the difference between different N evaluations. We believe an error analysis only based on any of those would underestimate the error. E. 2S 1Sγ decays The experimental situation of the 2S 1S radiative transitions has improved significantly over the last years. Whereas for the 2 1 S S 1 γ decay there are still no data 29
Radiative transitions and the quarkonium magnetic moment
Radiative transitions and the quarkonium magnetic moment Antonio Vairo based on Nora Brambilla, Yu Jia and Antonio Vairo Model-independent study of magnetic dipole transitions in quarkonium PRD 73 054005
More informationstrong coupling Antonio Vairo INFN and University of Milano
potential Non-Relativistic QCD strong coupling Antonio Vairo INFN and University of Milano For most of the quarkonium states: 1/r mv Λ QCD (0) V (r) (GeV) 2 1 Υ Υ Υ Υ η ψ c χ ψ ψ 2 0 1 2 r(fm) -1 weak
More informationarxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 7 Jan 2013
arxiv:1301.1308v1 [hep-ph] 7 Jan 2013 Electric dipole transitions in pnrqcd Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Wien E-mail: piotr.pietrulewicz@univie.ac.at We present a
More informationLectures on NRQCD Factorization for Quarkonium Production and Decay
Lectures on NRQCD Factorization for Quarkonium Production and Decay Eric Braaten Ohio State University I. Nonrelativistic QCD II. Annihilation decays III. Inclusive hard production 1 NRQCD Factorization
More informationarxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 21 Sep 2007
The QCD potential Antonio Vairo arxiv:0709.3341v1 [hep-ph] 1 Sep 007 Dipartimento di Fisica dell Università di Milano and INFN, via Celoria 16, 0133 Milano, Italy IFIC, Universitat de València-CSIC, Apt.
More informationPopat Patel (McGill University) On behalf of the BaBar Collaboration The Lomonosov XIV Conference Moscow (2009/08/24)
Popat Patel (McGill University) On behalf of the BaBar Collaboration The Lomonosov XIV Conference Moscow (2009/08/24) Outline Brief overview: BaBar Data Bottomonium Spectra Report on selected BaBar analyses
More informationHigh order corrections in theory of heavy quarkonium
High order corrections in theory of heavy quarkonium Alexander Penin TTP Karlsruhe & INR Moscow ECT Workshop in Heavy Quarkonium Trento, Italy, August 17-31, 2006 A. Penin, TTP Karlsruhe & INR Moscow ECT
More informationTop and bottom at threshold
Top and bottom at threshold Matthias Steinhauser TTP Karlsruhe Vienna, January 27, 2015 KIT University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and National Laboratory of the Helmholtz Association www.kit.edu
More informationA pnrqcd approach to t t near threshold
LoopFest V, SLAC, 20. June 2006 A pnrqcd approach to t t near threshold Adrian Signer IPPP, Durham University BASED ON WORK DONE IN COLLABORATION WITH A. PINEDA AND M. BENEKE, V. SMIRNOV LoopFest V p.
More informationPoS(EPS-HEP 2009)057. Bottomonium Studies at BaBar. Veronique Ziegler. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory E-mail: vziegler@slac.stanford.edu Selected studies in bottomonium physics carried out by the BaBar experiment at the SLAC PEP-II e + e collider are presented. They
More informationRecent Results from CLEO
Ryan Mitchell Indiana University MENU June 1, 2010 1 Overview of the CLEO Experiment CESR at Cornell University: symmetric e + e collisions at bottomonium (III) and charmonium (c) energies Inner Tracking:
More informationInclusive B decay Spectra by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation. Einan Gardi (Cambridge)
Inclusive B decay Spectra by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation Plan of the talk Einan Gardi (Cambridge) Inclusive Decay Spectra Why do we need to compute decay spectra? Kinematics, the endpoint region and the
More informationarxiv:hep-ph/ v1 5 Sep 2006
Masses of the η c (ns) and η b (ns) mesons arxiv:hep-ph/0609044v1 5 Sep 2006 A.M.Badalian 1, B.L.G.Bakker 2 1 Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia 2 Department of Physics and
More informationQuestions in Quarkonium Spectroscopy
Questions in Quarkonium Spectroscopy International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium Steve Godfrey Carleton University/DESY godfrey@physics.carleton.ca A very brief introduction to potential models Questions
More informationEffective Field Theories for Quarkonium
Effective Field Theories for Quarkonium recent progress Antonio Vairo Technische Universität München Outline 1. Scales and EFTs for quarkonium at zero and finite temperature 2.1 Static energy at zero temperature
More informationDetermination of α s from the QCD static energy
Determination of α s from the QCD static energy Antonio Vairo Technische Universität München Bibliography (1) A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto and A. Vairo Determination
More information2. HEAVY QUARK PRODUCTION
2. HEAVY QUARK PRODUCTION In this chapter a brief overview of the theoretical and experimental knowledge of heavy quark production is given. In particular the production of open beauty and J/ψ in hadronic
More informationThe relation between cross-section, decay width and imaginary potential of heavy quarkonium in a quark-gluon plasma
The relation between cross-section, decay width and imaginary potential of heavy quarkonium in a quark-gluon plasma Miguel A. Escobedo Physik-Department T30f. Technische Universität München 19th of September
More informationStudy of Transitions and Decays of Bottomonia at Belle
1 Study of Transitions and Decays of Bottomonia at Belle Saurabh Sandilya University of Cincinnati (On behalf of the Belle Collaboration) Outline Introduction (Bottomonia, KEKB & Belle detector) Transitions
More informationFigure 1. (a) (b) (c)
arxiv:hep-ph/9407339 v 15 Jan 1997 (a) (b) (c) Figure 1 arxiv:hep-ph/9407339 v 15 Jan 1997 H S Figure arxiv:hep-ph/9407339 v 15 Jan 1997 P/ + p - P/ + p (a) (b) Figure 3 arxiv:hep-ph/9407339 v 15 Jan 1997
More informationTheory of B X u l ν decays and V ub
Inclusive semileptonic B decays 1 Theory of B X u l ν decays and V ub Björn O. Lange Center for Theoretical Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Inclusive semileptonic B decays 2 Outline 1. Direct
More informationHyperfine Splitting in the Bottomonium System on the Lattice and in the Continuum
Hyperfine Splitting in the Bottomonium System on the Lattice and in the Continuum Nikolai Zerf in collaboration with M. Baker, A. Penin, D. Seidel Department of Physics University of Alberta Radcor-Loopfest,
More informationLattice QCD study of Radiative Transitions in Charmonium
Lattice QCD study of Radiative Transitions in Charmonium (with a little help from the quark model) Jo Dudek, Jefferson Lab with Robert Edwards & David Richards Charmonium spectrum & radiative transitions
More informationNew bottomonium(-like) resonances spectroscopy and decays at Belle
EP J Web of Conferences 70, 00034 (2014) DOI: 10.1051/ ep jconf/ 20147000034 C Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2014 New bottomonium(-like) resonances spectroscopy and decays at Belle Umberto
More informationColor screening in 2+1 flavor QCD
Color screening in 2+1 flavor QCD J. H. Weber 1 in collaboration with A. Bazavov 2, N. Brambilla 1, P. Petreczky 3 and A. Vairo 1 (TUMQCD collaboration) 1 Technische Universität München 2 Michigan State
More informationHeavy quarkonia at finite temperature: The EFT approach
Heavy quarkonia at finite temperature: he EF approach Jacopo Ghiglieri - echnische Universität München 5th Vienna Central European Seminar on QF 28 November 2008 Outline Motivation Introduction to Effective
More informationDetermination of α s from the QCD static energy
Determination of α s from the QCD static energy Antonio Vairo Technische Universität München Bibliography (1) A. Bazakov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto and A. Vairo Determination
More informationarxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 2 Sep 2008
M2 SIGNATURES IN ψ(2s) RADIATIVE DECAYS EFI 08-24 arxiv:0809.xxxx September 2008 arxiv:0809.0471v1 [hep-ph] 2 Sep 2008 Jonathan L. Rosner 1 Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics University of
More informationNicola Fabiano Perugia University and INFN, via Pascoli I-06100, Perugia, Italy. Abstract
η b Decay into Two Photons Nicola Fabiano Perugia University and INFN, via Pascoli I-06100, Perugia, Italy Abstract We discuss the theoretical predictions for the two photon decay width of the pseudoscalar
More informationHeavy quarkonium in a weaky-coupled plasma in an EFT approach
Heavy quarkonium in a weaky-coupled plasma in an EFT approach Jacopo Ghiglieri TU München & Excellence Cluster Universe in collaboration with N. Brambilla, M.A. Escobedo, J. Soto and A. Vairo 474th WE
More informationInclusive B decay Spectra by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation
Inclusive B decay Spectra by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation Plan of the tal Einan Gardi (Cambridge) Inclusive B decay spectra motivation Strategy of the theoretical study Very short introduction to Sudaov
More informationRecent Results in NRQCD
Max-Planck-Institute für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut) Recent Results in NRQCD Pedro D. Ruiz-Femenía Continuous Advances in QCD 2006 Continuous Advances in QCD 2006 May 11-14, University of Minnesota
More informationTop Antitop Pair Production Close to Threshold Synopsis of Recent NNLO Results
EPJdirect C3, 1 22 (2000) DOI 10.1007/s1010500c0003 EPJdirect electronic only c Springer-Verlag 2000 Top Antitop Pair Production Close to Threshold Synopsis of Recent NNLO Results A.H. Hoang 1, M. Beneke
More informationLattice calculation of static quark correlators at finite temperature
Lattice calculation of static quark correlators at finite temperature J. Weber in collaboration with A. Bazavov 2, N. Brambilla, M.Berwein, P. Petrezcky 3 and A. Vairo Physik Department, Technische Universität
More information2nd Hadron Spanish Network Days. Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) September 8-9, Rubén Oncala. In collaboration with Prof.
2nd Hadron Spanish Network Days Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) September 8-9, 20016 Rubén Oncala In collaboration with Prof. Joan Soto Heavy Quarkonium is a heavy quark-antiquark pair in a colour
More informationPoS(DIS2014)183. Charmonium Production at ATLAS. S. Cheatham on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration. McGill University
on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration. McGill University E-mail: susan.cheatham@cern.ch Understanding of the production of P-wave charmonium states is a significant bottleneck in the understanding of charmonium
More informationCharm Mass Determination from QCD Sum Rules at O(α )
Charm Mass Determination from QCD Sum Rules at O(α ) 3 s Vicent Mateu MIT - CTP Cambridge - USA PANIC 11 - MIT 25-07 - 2011 Taskforce: A. H. Hoang MPI & U. Vienna V. Mateu MIT & IFIC S.M. Zebarjad & B.
More informationarxiv:hep-ph/ v2 13 Feb 2004
lueball hunting in e + e f 0 Frank E. Close 1 and Qiang Zhao 2 1) Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, Keble Rd., Oxford, OX1 3NP, United Kingdom and 2) Department of Physics, University
More informationarxiv:hep-ph/ v1 24 Jan 2007
QUARKONIA AND THEIR TRANSITIONS CLNS 07/1988 EFI-06-15 FERMILAB-PUB-07-006-T January 24, 2007 arxiv:hep-ph/0701208v1 24 Jan 2007 Estia Eichten 1, Stephen Godfrey 2, Hanna Mahlke 3, and Jonathan L. Rosner
More informationCLEO Results on Quarkonium Transitions
CLEO Results on Quarkonium Transitions Brian Heltsley Cornell University QWG3 B Heltsley Oct 2004 1 Quarkonia Transitions ψ(2s) J/ψ + hadrons (NEW!) X J/ψ, π + π - J/ψ, π 0 π 0 J/ψ, η J/ψ, π 0 J/ψ (complete
More informationFour-fermion production near the W-pair production threshold. Giulia Zanderighi, Theory Division, CERN ILC Physics in Florence September
Four-fermion production near the W-pair production threshold Giulia Zanderighi, Theory Division, CERN ILC Physics in Florence September 12-14 2007 International Linear Collider we all believe that no matter
More informationCLEO Results From Υ Decays
CLEO Results From Υ Decays V. Credé 1 2 1 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 2 now at Florida State University Tallahassee, FL Hadron 05 Outline 1 Introduction The Υ System CLEO III Detector CLEO III Υ Data
More informationA New Measurement of η b (1S) From ϒ(3S) Radiative Decay at CLEO
A New Measurement of η b (1S) From ϒ(S) Radiative Decay at CLEO Sean Dobbs (for the CLEO Collaboration) Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 628, USA arxiv:11.228v1 [hep-ex] 1 Jan 21 Abstract. Using CLEO
More informationScaling patterns in ATLAS & CMS quarkonium production data
Scaling patterns in ATLAS & CMS quarkonium production data Pietro Faccioli, IST and LIP, Lisbon C. Lourenço M. Araújo J. Seixas Quarkonium Working Group, November 8 th 2017 1. shapes of the p T distributions
More informationV cb. Determination of. and related results from BABAR. Masahiro Morii, Harvard University on behalf of the BABAR Collaboration
Determination of and related results from BABAR V cb Masahiro Morii, Harvard University on behalf of the BABAR Collaboration V cb from inclusive B semileptonic decays Lepton energy moments Hadron mass
More informationV cb : experimental and theoretical highlights. Marina Artuso Syracuse University
V cb : experimental and theoretical highlights Marina Artuso Syracuse University 1 The method b q W - e, µ, ν c or u q τ Ultimate goal: a precise determination of V cb The challenge: precise evaluation
More informationCharmonium Radiative Transitions
Charmonium Radiative Transitions Jielei Zhang Institute of High Energy of Physics (for the BESIII collaboration) QWG2016 1 What to measure What have done with old datasets 1.06 10 8 ψ(3686) 2009 What will
More informationMeson Radiative Transitions on the Lattice hybrids and charmonium. Jo Dudek, Robert Edwards, David Richards & Nilmani Mathur Jefferson Lab
Meson Radiative Transitions on the Lattice hybrids and charmonium Jo Dudek, Robert Edwards, David Richards & Nilmani Mathur Jefferson Lab 1 JLab, GlueX and photocouplings GlueX plans to photoproduce mesons
More informationQuarkonium Results from Fermilab and NRQCD
Quarkonium Results from Fermilab and NRQCD Paul Mackenzie mackenzie@fnal.gov International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium Fermilab Sept. 20-22 2003 Thanks Christine Davies (HPQCD), Jim Simone Recent progress
More informationAll order pole mass and potential
All order pole mass and potential Taekoon Lee Seoul National University, Korea QWG3, Beijing, China, Oct. 12--15, 2004 Defining pole mass and potential through Borel summation How to perform the Borel
More informationEffective Field Theory
Effective Field Theory Iain Stewart MIT The 19 th Taiwan Spring School on Particles and Fields April, 2006 Physics compartmentalized Quantum Field Theory String Theory? General Relativity short distance
More informationThermal width and quarkonium dissociation in an EFT framework
Thermal width and quarkonium dissociation in an EFT framework Antonio Vairo Technische Universität München in collaboration with N. Brambilla, M. A. Escobedo and J. Ghiglieri based on arxiv:1303.6097 and
More informationCorrections of Order β 3 0α 3 s to the Energy Levels and Wave Function
005 International Linear Collider Workshop - Stanford U.S.A. Corrections of Order β 0α s to the Energy Levels and Wave Function M. Steinhauser Institut für Theoretische Teilchenphysik Universität Karlsruhe
More informationDouble-charmed Baryons
Double-charmed Baryons The only experimental information about DCB gives SELEX collaboration: There are several questions to SELEX results: 1) Lifetime 2) Cross sections Theoretical information about DCB:
More informationQuarkonium Free Energy on the lattice and in effective field theories
Quarkonium Free Energy on the lattice and in effective field theories J. H. Weber 1,2 in collaboration with A. Bazavov 2, N. Brambilla 1, P. Petreczky 3 and A. Vairo 1 (TUMQCD collaboration) 1 Technische
More informationPart 7: Hadrons: quarks and color
FYSH3, fall Tuomas Lappi tuomas.v.v.lappi@jyu.fi Office: FL49. No fixed reception hours. kl Part 7: Hadrons: quarks and color Introductory remarks In the previous section we looked at the properties of
More informationarxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 3 Feb 2014
Born-Oppenheimer Approximation for the XY Z Mesons Eric Braaten, Christian Langmack, and D. Hudson Smith Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA arxiv:1402.0438v1 [hep-ph]
More informationTop Quarks, Unstable Particles... and NRQCD
Top Quarks, Unstable Particles... and NRQCD André H. Hoang Max-Planck-Institute for Physics Munich (Thanks to A. Manohar, I. Stewart, T. Teubner, C. Farrell, C. Reisser, M. Stahlhofen ) INT Workshop, May
More informationApplications of QCD Sum Rules to Heavy Quark Physics
Applications of QCD Sum Rules to Heavy Quark Physics Alexander Khodjamirian UNIVERSITÄT SIEGEN Theoretische Physik 1 RESEARCH UNIT q et f 3 lectures at Helmholtz International School "Physics of Heavy
More informationLecture 9 Valence Quark Model of Hadrons
Lecture 9 Valence Quark Model of Hadrons Isospin symmetry SU(3) flavour symmetry Meson & Baryon states Hadronic wavefunctions Masses and magnetic moments Heavy quark states 1 Isospin Symmetry Strong interactions
More informationRunning electromagnetic coupling constant: low energy normalization and the value at M Z
MZ-TH/00-51 November 2000 Running electromagnetic coupling constant: low energy normalization and the value at M Z A.A. Pivovarov Institut für Physik, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität, Staudinger Weg 7,
More informationQuarkonium Hybrids. Joan Soto. Universitat de Barcelona ) Departament de Física Quàntica i Astrofísica Institut de Ciències del Cosmos
Quarkonium Hybrids Joan Soto Universitat de Barcelona ) Departament de Física Quàntica i Astrofísica Institut de Ciències del Cosmos INT-18-1b, Seattle, 05/29/18 Rubén Oncala, JS, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014004
More informationV ub without shape functions (really!)
V ub without shape functions (really!) Zoltan Ligeti, Lawrence Berkeley Lab SLAC, Dec. 7, 2001 Introduction... V ub is very important to overconstrain CKM It doesn t really matter in this program whether
More informationCLEO Charmonium Results
CLEO Charmonium Results Hanna Mahlke Cornell University Ithaca, NY Quarkonium Working Group Meeting 10/17-20/07 DESY, Hamburg The Landscape All states below DD threshold observed 1-- states known best,
More informationMESON SPECTROSCOPY RESULTS
MESON SPECTROSCOPY RESULTS J. Rosner, at Lattice Meets Experiment, Fermilab, April 26 27, 2010 Some results which can be compared to lattice predictions: 1 1 P 1 (c c) h c mass, production, decays (CLEO,
More informationCharmonium Spectroscopy and Decay at CLEO c
Charmonium Spectroscopy and Decay at CLEO c Helmut Vogel Carnegie Mellon University CLEO c at CESR (for the CLEO Collaboration) PHIPSI09, IHEP, Beijing, 13 Oct 2009 Acknowledgments and thanks to: Matt
More informationarxiv:hep-ph/ v1 28 Dec 1998
Associated Production of Υ and Weak Gauge Bosons at the Tevatron UTPT-98-18 hep-ph/9812505 December 1998 arxiv:hep-ph/9812505v1 28 Dec 1998 Eric Braaten and Jungil Lee Physics Department, Ohio State University,
More informationExotic and excited-state radiative transitions in charmonium from lattice QCD
Exotic and excited-state radiative transitions in charmonium from lattice QCD Christopher Thomas, Jefferson Lab Hadron Spectroscopy Workshop, INT, November 2009 In collaboration with: Jo Dudek, Robert
More informatione e with ISR and the Rb Scan at BaBar
e e with ISR and the Rb Scan at BaBar + + Francesco Renga Università di Roma La Sapienza & INFN Roma on behalf of the BaBar Collaboration 1 Introduction B Factories showed an exciting capability for improving
More informationarxiv: v2 [hep-ph] 4 Aug 2016
Study of Color Octet Matrix Elements Through J/ψ Production in e + e Annihilation Yi-JieLi (a), Guang-ZhiXu (a), Pan-Pan Zhang (a), Yu-JieZhang (b,c), andkui-yongliu (a) arxiv:1409.2293v2 [hep-ph] 4 Aug
More informationCharmonium Transitions
Hans Kuipers & Maikel de Vries Student Seminar on Subatomic Physics October 14, 2009 Outline n 2S+1 L J J PC Aspects of charmonium Charmonium is a mesonic bound state of c c. Charmonium produced in e e
More informationarxiv: v1 [hep-lat] 5 Nov 2013
Heavy quarkonium potential from Bethe-Salpeter wave function on the lattice Taichi Kawanai 1,2 and Shoichi Sasaki 1,3 1 Theoretical Research Division, Nishina Center, RIKEN, Wako 351-198, Japan 2 Department
More informationExclusive Radiative Higgs Decays as Probes of Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings
Exclusive Radiative Higgs Decays as Probes of Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings Matthias Ko nig Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz 25th International Workshop on Weak Interactions and Neutrinos Heidelberg,
More informationarxiv:hep-lat/ v2 30 Jul 1996
ANL-HEP-PR-96-28 QUARKONIUM DECAY MATRIX ELEMENTS FROM QUENCHED LATTICE QCD G. T. Bodwin and D. K. Sinclair arxiv:hep-lat/9605023v2 30 Jul 1996 HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass
More informationY(nS,n 4) Decays at B-Factories
Y(nS,n 4) Decays at B-Factories Roberto Mussa INFN Torino on behalf of: 1 Physics in Collisions, Kobe, 31/8/2009 Outline Y(2,3S) transitions to parabottomonia Y(1S), b (1,2P) inclusive decays to open charm
More informationLatest developments in the Spectroscopy of Heavy Hadrons
Latest developments in the Spectroscopy of Heavy Hadrons Fulvia De Fazio INFN - Bari Question: recent discoveries in charm(onium) and bottom (onium) spectra might be exotic states? Collaborators: P. Colangelo,
More informationarxiv:hep-ph/ v4 18 Nov 1999
February 8, 018 arxiv:hep-ph/990998v4 18 Nov 1999 OITS-678 CLEO measurement of B π + π and determination of weak phase α 1 K. Agashe and N.G. Deshpande 3 Institute of Theoretical Science University of
More informationHeavy-quark hybrid mesons and the Born-Oppenheimer approximation
Heavy-quark hybrid mesons and the Born-Oppenheimer approximation Colin Morningstar Carnegie Mellon University Quarkonium Workshop, Fermilab Sept 20, 2003 9/20/2003 Hybrid mesons (C. Morningstar) 1 Outline!
More informationA Global Fit to NRQCD Parameters from charmonium P. states' widths. Outline. Roberto Mussa (INFN-Torino) and Γ γγ. NRQCD estimates on Γ LH
A Global Fit to NRQCD Parameters from charmonium P states' widths Roberto Mussa (INFN-Torino) Outline NRQCD estimates on Γ LH and Γ γγ LH widths γγ widths Fitting Algorithm Fit Results 2 nd Workshop, Fermilab,
More informationPoS(LATTICE 2013)500. Charmonium, D s and D s from overlap fermion on domain wall fermion configurations
Charmonium, D s and D s from overlap fermion on domain wall fermion configurations,, Y. Chen, A. Alexandru, S.J. Dong, T. Draper, M. Gong,, F.X. Lee, A. Li, 4 K.F. Liu, Z. Liu, M. Lujan, and N. Mathur
More informationZahra Haddadi, KVI-CART (University of Groningen) for the BESIII collaboration 1 Sep EUNPC 2015, Groningen
Zahra Haddadi, KVI-CART (University of Groningen) for the BESIII collaboration 1 Sep. 2015 EUNPC 2015, Groningen Outline: Charmonium spectroscopy spin-singlet states puzzle BESIII & precision measurements
More informationarxiv:hep-ph/ v3 24 Jun 1999
UTPT-98-18 hep-ph/9812505 December 1998 Revised January 1999 Associated Production of Υ arxiv:hep-ph/9812505v3 24 Jun 1999 and Weak Gauge Bosons in Hadron Colliders Eric Braaten and Jungil Lee Physics
More information2 Introduction to SCET
INTRODUCTION TO SCET Introduction to SCET.1 What is SCET? The Soft-Collinear Effective Theory is an effective theory describing the interactions of soft and collinear degrees of freedom in the presence
More informationNational Nuclear Physics Summer School Lectures on Effective Field Theory. Brian Tiburzi. RIKEN BNL Research Center
2014 National Nuclear Physics Summer School Lectures on Effective Field Theory I. Removing heavy particles II. Removing large scales III. Describing Goldstone bosons IV. Interacting with Goldstone bosons
More information8.882 LHC Physics. Experimental Methods and Measurements. Onia as Probes in Heavy Ion Physics [Lecture 10, March 9, 2009]
8.882 LHC Physics Experimental Methods and Measurements Onia as Probes in Heavy Ion Physics [Lecture 10, March 9, 2009] Lecture Outline Onia as Probes in Heavy Ion Physics what are onia? and bit of history
More informationRelativistic correction to the static potential at O(1/m)
Relativistic correction to the static potential at O(1/m) Miho Koma (Inst. f. Kernphysik, Mainz Univ.) Yoshiaki Koma, Hartmut Wittig Lattice 2007, Regensburg, 30 July 2007 We investigate the relativistic
More informationarxiv: v2 [hep-ex] 16 Nov 2007
Proceedings of the CHARM 2007 Workshop, Ithaca, NY, August 5-8, 2007 1 Recent studies of Charmonium Decays at CLEO H. Muramatsu Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester,
More informationCharmonium Physics. Zhengguo Zhao. University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) PIC2010 Karlsruhe, Zhengguo Zhao
Charmonium Physics Zhengguo Zhao University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) PIC2010 Karlsruhe, Zhengguo Zhao 1 Outline Introduction to charm quark and charmonia Recent results - New resonances,
More informationA data-driven approach to η and η Dalitz decays
A data-driven approach to η and η Dalitz decays Rafel Escribano 1,2, 1 Grup de Física Teòrica, Departament de Física, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain 2 Institut
More informationpnrqcd determination of E1 radiative transitions
pnrqcd determination of E radiative transitions Sebastian Steinbeißer Group T3f Department of Physics Technical University Munich IMPRS talk 3.3.7 In collaboration with: Nora Brambilla, Antonio Vairo and
More informationarxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 13 Nov 2013
euniversityofmanchester November 14, 2013 arxiv:1311.3203v1 [hep-ph] 13 Nov 2013 Odd- and even-parity charmed mesons revisited in heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory Mohammad Alhakami 1 School of Physics
More informationNew Charmonium Results from CLEO c
New Charmonium Results from CLEO c Helmut Vogel (for the CLEO Collaboration) Carnegie Mellon University CHARM09, Leimen, Germany One of the last CLEO c events (taken on 3 March 2008) e+e- Ds*+Ds- CLEO
More informationDiscovery of Pions and Kaons in Cosmic Rays in 1947
Discovery of Pions and Kaons in Cosmic Rays in 947 π + µ + e + (cosmic rays) Points to note: de/dx Bragg Peak Low de/dx for fast e + Constant range (~600µm) (i.e. -body decay) small angle scattering Strange
More informationRecent V ub results from CLEO
Recent V ub results from CLEO Marina Artuso Representing the CLEO Collaboration Beauty 2005, Assisi, June 20-25, 2005 1 Quark Mixing Weak interaction couples weak eigenstates, not mass eigenstates: CKM
More informationRecent Progress on Charmonium Decays at BESIII
Recent Progress on Charmonium Decays at BESIII Xiao-Rui Lu (on behalf of the BESIII Collaboration) Physics Department Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, 0049, China xiaorui@gucas.ac.cn
More informationThe 9th International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium Monday 22 April Friday 26 April IHEP, Beijing.
The 9th International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium 2013 Monday 22 April 2013 - Friday 26 April 2013 IHEP, Beijing Book of Abstracts Contents Searches for XYZ exotic states at LHCb.......................
More informationStudy on the Two-Photon Transition from ψ(2s) to J/ψ at BESIII
Study on the Two-Photon Transition from ψ(2s) to J/ψ at BESIII 吕晓睿 Xiao-Rui Lu (E-mail: xiaorui@gucas.ac.cn) Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (GUCAS) List of Contents: Introduction (on
More informationQCD and Rescattering in Nuclear Targets Lecture 2
QCD and Rescattering in Nuclear Targets Lecture Jianwei Qiu Iowa State University The 1 st Annual Hampton University Graduate Studies Program (HUGS 006) June 5-3, 006 Jefferson Lab, Newport News, Virginia
More informationarxiv:hep-lat/ v2 17 Jun 2005
BI-TP 25/8 and BNL-NT-5/8 Static quark anti-quark interactions in zero and finite temperature QCD. I. Heavy quark free energies, running coupling and quarkonium binding Olaf Kaczmarek Fakultät für Physik,
More informationWhen Perturbation Theory Fails...
When Perturbation Theory Fails... Brian Tiburzi (University of Maryland) When Perturbation Theory Fails... SU(3) chiral perturbation theory? Charm quark in HQET, NRQCD? Extrapolations of lattice QCD data?
More information